The judgment establishes that employees must adhere to transfer orders and report for duty, and that unauthorized absence is a valid ground for disciplinary action, reinforcing the employer's authority in managing service matters.

JUDGMENT

1. This intra-court appeal seeks to call in question a learned Single Judge's order dated 20.03.2013 whereby, the Respondent-employee's Writ Petition No.35246/2009 (S-DIS) having been favoured, the punishment of compulsory retirement as affirmed in Departmental Appeal came to be set at naught coupled with a direction to reinstate her in service without back wages & consequential benefits, although continuity of service was granted for the limited purpose of retirement accruals.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation submits that the impugned order is liable to be voided since where, which employee should work, belongs to the domain of employer; merely because there was some health problem, an employee cannot refuse to work in the place of posting; thirdly, the very conduct of the employee in bringing political influence through a particular Member of Parliament itself, disentitled her to the discretionary remedy; despite direction to report for duty, she remained absent and that amounts to a misconduct; the medical report was not favourable to her. So arguing he seeks allowing of the appeal.

3. After service of notice, the respondentemployee having entered appearance through her counsel, opposes the appeal making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been constructed. She explains the difficulty that her client was put to because of wrong attitude of the employer; she had allergy problem that came in the way of working at the particular place and therefore she had sought for posting elsewhere; the distance she was required to travel on daily basis was about 3 kms.; added, there was no facility even for answering nature's call. Learned Single Judge having considered all aspects of the matter has made a just order that does not warrant invalidation. So contending she seeks dismissal of the appeal.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Appeal Papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission of learned Panel Counsel appearing for the appellant-Corporation. Ordinarily, every employee is liable to be transferred and that the transferred employee is liable to report for duty to the other place. Justice Rama Jois in his 'Services under the State' 1st Edition at page 565 writes as under:

'A government servant is liable for transfer from one place to another and also from one post to another. It is competent for the government to transfer a civil servant from one post to another equivalent post.... A civil servant has no right to insist that he should not be transferred.. Any order of transfer made in public interest cannot be challenged before the court as it does not violate any of the conditions of service'.

It hardly needs to be stated that the employer alone is best suited to judge as to the existence of exigencies of service requiring transfer & posting; courts cannot run a race of opinions. Again it is the employer who decides which employee should work where, subject to statutory exceptions. True it is, that transfer creates some hardship to any employee; however, that is inevitable. Grievance can be worked out for such hardship at the hands of the employer only. Added, such a grievance can be raised only after the employee reports at the place of transfer. This aspect has been completely lost sight of by the learned Single Judge.

5. The Respondent-employee in justification of her prolonged absence from the transferred post had pleaded allergy as a health ground. However the medical report did not support her case. The doctors specifically stated that she had no justification for availing leave on health grounds, although she was suffering from little allergy.

This aspect having been examined by the competent authority, the employee was put to compulsory retirement. After all, continued absence from duty despite rejection of leave application is treated as a misconduct in all civilized Service